the fear that same sex marriage may lead to bizarre forms of marital legalization is baseless and dumb. you see the problem with beastiality (having sex with animals), pedophilia (having sex with little children), and other forms of “deviance” is the lack of one powerful word: consent. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, requires consent between partners for it to be legitimate. Otherwise it’s just rape and sorry, rape is just rape. Doesn’t matter if it’s man on man, woman on man, man on woman, or strange man on dog. Lack of consent = rape = bad.

I will call you a homophobe, even if a stupid flow chart doesn’t. I’ll even use Webster’s medical definiton (that’s right I’m saying you have a PROBLEM).

you CHOOSE to deny individuals the same rights you so claim as a straight cis-man. That is intolerance. That is Discrimination.

It’s ok though, you still have your fairy tales to keep you smiling, even though you’re really just a shallow fearful bigot using an outdated, irrelevant, book which has long since served its purpose to mask his fear.

the fear that same sex marriage may lead to bizarre forms of marital legalization is baseless and dumb.

The argument isn’t that same sex marriage may leads to bizarre forms of marital legalization. The argument is that bizarre forms of marital legalization follow logically from some of the arguments for same sex marriage. And since polygamous couples are using some of those arguments themselves, it is not far-fetched to think that if same sex marriage is legalized for those reasons that polygamous marriages will be legalized for the same reasons. Same thing with incestual marriages. By pointing out that there is a reason for forbidding beastiality and pedophilia, you are tacitly admitting that some of the arguments for same sex marriage are fallacious. I’ll give you an example:

1. Bob should be able to marry whoever he wants as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else.
2. Bob wants to marry James, and marrying James doesn’t hurt anybody else.
3. Therefore, Bob should be able to marry James.

That’s one of the arguments for same sex marriage. But if you take that first premise to its logical conclusion, it reach an absurdity:

1. Bob should be able to marry whoever he wants as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else.
2. Bob wants to marry his sheep.
3. Therefore, Bob should be able to marry his sheep.

Now, you rightly point out that Bob shouldn’t be able to marry his sheep because his sheep cannot consent to the marriage. It follows that the conclusion is false. And since the conclusion is false, one of the premises that lead to the conclusion is also false. Since you can’t deny that Bob wants to marry his sheep, you must reject the first premise.

Once you reject that first premise, you undermine the pro-same sex marriage above. So by pointing out why we shouldn’t allow beastiality, you have proven our point–that some of these arguments for same sex marriage are fallacious.